Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dryden Vos is confirmed as some kind of near-human alien. I also noticed he turned extremely pale mere moments after death, which I first chalked up to artistic licence or maybe something to do with his injuries/corrective surgery. But after learning he's an alien, I guess that has an impact.

I just thought he was a guy with tattoos.

They need to make those kind of almost human aliens more obviously alien.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
You don’t think Solo’s poor performance will stop future Story movies from being released?

If people were hesitant to see a movie about Han Solo, I'm not sure they will feel more excited to see a movie about Boba Fett. Take the number of people who can recognize the name Han Solo and divide it by maybe 15 or 20 and you will have the number of people who can recognize the name Boba Fett. I don't think featuring a more obscure character will do a nostalgia-driven franchise film any favors, at least under the current marketing paradigm (making a movie a vehicle for a particular character). I think we will see further Star Wars Story-type films, in the sense of non-trilogy one off movies, but I don't think they will be branded the same way. I guess, however, it really depends on how Episode IX does.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They need to make those kind of almost human aliens more obviously alien.

Lord and Miller cast Michael Kenneth Williams to voice act (and maybe mocap) a CGI-realized alien character for this role, something that looked like a cat man. When Kennedy fired them, so much of the film (approx. 70%, rumored) had to be reshot and Williams's schedule prevented him from participating. Paul Bettany was cast to replace him. I imagine that at that point there probably wasn't enough money and/or time to do the CGI stuff. And that far into production, they needed a concept that could work very quickly on the set. I think this was a change for the better. Bettany played a very chilling, menacing character who worked well with Emilia Clarke's portrayal of the girl who "didn't get out." I doubt it would have felt as terrifying had it been some CGI cat man.

Rogue One did all right, which was about a bunch of no-names.

The problem with Boba Fett as a hero is that only fairly hard core fans know or care about him, and he's a villain too.

If Star Wars is to branch out, it has to get away from the nostalgia characters and do something new. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

That said, I would be happy to watch a Han Solo 2 film in which he and Chewbacca get involved in some kind of exciting caper with fast action and great visuals.

The no-names did not really matter for R1's marketing appeal. (Even the script did not care about them.) It was all about this well-known pulp icon the Death Star. And keep in mind the big moment from the R1 trailer was Darth Vader's wheezing sounds.

Solo 2 would be wonderful! But so many flavors of internet media pundits have declared it a failure and that stink is hard to shake. If it ever needed to be said, now is the time: this is why we can't have nice things.

You've got me thinking about Kenneth Williams as Dryden Voss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7_IWWAlMJg&t=160s

Solo 2: Carry On Chewie

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rogue One did all right, which was about a bunch of no-names.

The problem with Boba Fett as a hero is that only fairly hard core fans know or care about him, and he's a villain too.

They could use Boba Fett to milk that Anti-Hero aspect.

Anti-hero is a different thing to Villain.

The anti-hero is the boring, everyday person with no special qualities, the opposite of the hero.

The villain is the foil to the hero.

I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anti-hero is a different thing to Villain.

The anti-hero is the boring, everyday person with no special qualities, the opposite of the hero.

The villain is the foil to the hero.

I was thinking in line of Comics, where Red Hood, Venom, Deadpool, The Punisher, sometimes Deathstroke are Anti-Heros.

The 90's Anti-Hero logic. Which Boba would fill the Deathstroke notion of the Anti-Hero in stories where he is the Protagonist and sometimes good guy. Or they just play him as The Man with No Name in the Fett movie, since thats who he was loosely based on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or he can just be a Villain Protagonist.

 Manchu wrote:
I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.

Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.

Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.

The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.

It's an interesting point for this thread.

The mood of pop culture for so long has been against heroes in the traditional sense, perhaps because the notion tradition itself (as an empty signifier) has been under attack.

Han Solo is depicted in this movie as very close to a more classical hero: handsome, brave, kind, witty, sincere, and most importantly adventurous and wide-eyed.

I really like how the film does portrays his relative naivete as a strength rather than a weakness.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.

Kilkrazy is not wrong. The concept of anti-heroic as he's using it (which is the formal sense) references a more traditional version of heroic, which is not just about good intentions but also being extraordinary in some way. Nowadays, we use the word "hero" very loosely and generally without reference to some special, remarkable characteristic.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.

Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.

The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)

If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.

Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.

The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)

If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.

I see what you mean now, but I wasnt trying to label Fett the Villain as an Anti-Hero when he could be both depending on the story. Fett could be used as a Protagonist yet still be the Villain, Villain-Protagonist if you will, or an Anti-Hero. Red Hood has filled the roll of Villain and Anti-Hero at different times in the Comics (infact in his first appearance Under the Red Hood, he was one of the Villains), so why would that not be applicable to Fett.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
White men are the power elite. When they are harrassing the weaker members of society, it's the weaker members of society that I will side with.

Wealth has far more to do with being part of the power elite than skin color. I'm sure no member of any power elite no matter how pale I am.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.

Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.

The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)

If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.

I see what you mean now, but I wasnt trying to label Fett the Villain as an Anti-Hero when he could be both depending on the story. Fett could be used as a Protagonist yet still be the Villain, Villain-Protagonist if you will, or an Anti-Hero. Red Hood has filled the roll of Villain and Anti-Hero at different times in the Comics (infact in his first appearance Under the Red Hood, he was one of the Villains), so why would that not be applicable to Fett.

Can a Star Wars film work with a Villain as the chief protagonist?

Being a Villain or not depends entirely on ones own point of view.

I'd say that Boba was never really a true villain. He was clearly just portrayed as interested only in the credits associated with capturing Han. And he's not merely content with capturing Han and selling him to the Empire OR Jabba. He wants both bounties, and goes to a bit of trouble to ensure he does. He obviously got a sizable payout for tracking the Millennium Falcon to Bespin. Now many bounty hunters might have settled with that, because obviously asking for one of the prisoners you've already captured back so you can sell him to someone else while still getting paid for giving him to the first individual is a pretty ballsy request.

Its like a cowboy in Texas capturing a rustler and turning him over to the Texas Rangers and then, after collecting your reward, asking if you can have him back and take him over to Oklahoma because he's wanted there too.

Anti hero doesn't mean villain. It means what others have said.

Punisher is a Anti hero. Because he goes too far and uses extreme measures and mass violence to combat crime.

Deadpool also a good example of a atnihero. He has powers and skills that would put him on par with most of the marvel universe. But his willingness to kill for money makes him distinctly non heroic. It doesn't stop what little moral compass he has from making him the hero in his own books or siding with the heroes who generally frown upon him for his lower moral standards.

At least that is the common modern definition of the term.

Keep in mind that Dr Doom is a villain. But that doesn't mean we can't have a story in which he is the protagonist over coming his own challenges. Villain, Hero, Anti hero can be very different terms from protagonist antagonist in that any of them could be the protagonist/antagonist of whatever story we are talking about.

Thanos was for sure the villain of infinity war. He was also the protagonist. That was his movie and we watched his heroes journey.

What I really hope with a Fett movie is that they don't get Temuera Morrison back to play the role. It would be a huge marker that the prequels don't colour the thinking of new films (but as we saw Mon Mothma and Bail Organa in R1 played by their prequel actors I think it's sadly inevitable).

To be honest, after pondering it for a bit, I'm not fussed about Fett. He used to be a cool character, but the prequel backstory and the awful Karen Traviss stories kind of ruined him.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You've got me thinking about Kenneth Williams as Dryden Voss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7_IWWAlMJg&t=160s

Why not, he's already played Darth Vader.

While I absolutely think there's potential in a Boba Fett story, the side story movies really need to make a hard break from the main saga if they want to use them to build up a proper cinematic universe. If they don't, they run the risk of falling into the same pattern the EU books did, with the same people and places factoring into literally everything happening no matter how far-flung, and movie audiences will lose patience with that a lot faster than the die-hard readers.

I want to see them experiment with perspective characters, someone who is comfortable living in the empire until he sees something that shakes him to his core, or in format with like a miniseries covering the things the Azameens go through in X-wing Alliance. I'm even open to more prequel-era stories or stuff covering the formation of the First Order.

Edit: Oh, saw Solo a second time. Still liking it, but on second viewing I think my only real lasting complaint is that elements from the John Williams Star Wars theme intrude on the soundtrack really obnoxiously in some parts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think most people (that is, outside of formal criticism) use the term antihero to mean a protagonist who is cynical, amoral, selfish, or otherwise subverts the classic moral ideal of the noble hero.

Then we need a new term to denote anti-hero.

The Anti-Hero you described or that is the one used in common nomenclature? Because a quick look into definitions the top result is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Rather than what you described.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. An anti-hero is the opposite of a hero, a character who lacks heroic attributes, an ordinary bloke, if you will. (Philip K Dick was fond of anti-heroes.)

If we are to use the word "anti-hero" to mean "villain", then we need a new word to describe the anti-hero.

I see what you mean now, but I wasnt trying to label Fett the Villain as an Anti-Hero when he could be both depending on the story. Fett could be used as a Protagonist yet still be the Villain, Villain-Protagonist if you will, or an Anti-Hero. Red Hood has filled the roll of Villain and Anti-Hero at different times in the Comics (infact in his first appearance Under the Red Hood, he was one of the Villains), so why would that not be applicable to Fett.

Can a Star Wars film work with a Villain as the chief protagonist?

Why would one not work? Why would he have to still be a villain? Was he really a villain in Episode V and VI or just an antagonist? If he was actually a Villain, then the movie could be his path to going full villain, or be like The Unforgiven and tell the story of an Older Fett reluctantly coming back for another job before giving fully into his old ways. Or, if as a Bounty Hunter and Mercenary he was just an Antagonist and not a Villain, he could be portrayed as an Anti-Hero in his own film, much like The Man With No Name, from the Dollars Trilogy.

Personally, I dont think he ever was a villain, just an Antagonist.

I would love to see one centered around fighter pilots.... I don't know.... maybe somethign like Rogue Squadron?

I mean, how hard is it to make a fighter pilot genre movie and apply it to Star Wars? Answer.... not at all!

 Riquende wrote:
What I really hope with a Fett movie is that they don't get Temuera Morrison back to play the role. It would be a huge marker that the prequels don't colour the thinking of new films (but as we saw Mon Mothma and Bail Organa in R1 played by their prequel actors I think it's sadly inevitable).

If the Fett movie is set at around the same time as Solo, Fett would be 22 as well (having been cloned in 32 BBY) so Temuera Morrison is to old to play that role now. If it's post RotJ it's possible. They need to stick with an actor of Māori descent for the part Taika Waititi's name is getting thrown around but again he's to old to play a Solo era Fett. There's even artwork floating around.

The way to make Fett or any other bounty hunters work as anti heroes is to put them up against an even bigger villian, Vader won't work as he and Fett seem to have at least a decent working relationship in Empire. Have them do something, unknown to them on behalf of Rebels, through a third party against the Empire. If it'spost RotJ I guess you could do some redemption story.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does this thread have to turn into another "I h8 TLJ" slag-fest?

Can't people look at Han Solo on its own merits?

I think the problem is that a lot of us went into solo, or skipped it entirely, due to trepidation from how badly we disliked TLJ. I have a feeling that TLJ is going to weigh heavily on most Star Wars fans’ opinions for the forseeable future.

 DaveC wrote:

If the Fett movie is set at around the same time as Solo, Fett would be 22 as well (having been cloned in 32 BBY) so Temuera Morrison is to old to play that role now.

Yes, I was thinking that the clones aged rapidly but forgot Boba was unaltered. My bad.

There are a host of Fett short stories where he plays a morally-ambiguous protagonist so it wouldn't be too difficult to do. Surely the most obvious "Star Wars Underworld Cinematic Universe" thing to do would be him cementing his place at the top of the bounty hunter food chain and being commissioned by a certain head of Crimson Dawn to take out a top Imperial Enforcer of the black-armoured variety (which leads to grudging mutual respect etc).

But I'm not enthused. As mentioned above the EU got tired when it was the same characters, all the time. The Rogue/Wraith squadron books were fairly universally liked. A series following a family like the Azzameens would be great, an independent family living on the fringe, maybe with an Imperial cousin etc for complications...

DaveC wrote:The way to make Fett or any other bounty hunters work as anti heroes is to put them up against an even bigger villian, Vader won't work as he and Fett seem to have at least a decent working relationship in Empire. Have them do something, unknown to them on behalf of Rebels, through a third party against the Empire.

Early proto-Rebellion group with significant elements from the old Confederacy conducting a devastating terror campaign and being led by a Clone War veteran played by Morrison. The regional Governor ropes in some bounty-hunters to resolve the issue and its a race against time to capture the leader dead or alive before Vader shows up and ends it with ruthless super-efficiency.

Concludes with Boba taking out Morrison with a thermal charge like what Jango used in space against Obi-Wan, and as a final coda, stands up to Vader swearing he's done the job even as he's being choked out. Is proven right when the insurgency collapses and earns some begrudging respect from Vader.

Is this the Han Solo thread or the Boba Fett thread?

To return to a relevant point, the reason IMO why a Star Wars film might not work with a Villain as the Hero is that he would be a Villain, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Villain.

Han Solo is a flawed Hero who falls into low ways through necessity, the foolishness of youth, and his bad upbringing, but he has a heart of gold. Part of our acceptance of this is due to our knowledge of his future role as a major force in the Resistance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is this the Han Solo thread or the Boba Fett thread?

To return to a relevant point, the reason IMO why a Star Wars film might not work with a Villain as the Hero is that he would be a Villain, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Villain.

Han Solo is a flawed Hero who falls into low ways through necessity, the foolishness of youth, and his bad upbringing, but he has a heart of gold. Part of our acceptance of this is due to our knowledge of his future role as a major force in the Resistance.

But the point is that (to a large number of people) Fett is an antagonist, not a villain.

Han Solo is a flawed, arguably Anti-Hero type, that grows into being a more traditional Hero. Who ultimately because of events of his life sort of returns to being the Anti-Hero type.